Hello, I am the 3rd lawyer defending Dracula that he did not commit the murder. There is no evidence that Dracula had taken such an action. Being accused without any evidence should not even come to a trial. I believe that Side 2, overall, have lack of evidence that it was Dracula who have killed Lucy. Looking at out point we are able to see concrete points which made Dracula not a killer.
#1.The people around her would be responsible for Lucy's death since they were next to her at all times.
- They should have taken better care of her so that Lucy would have become better.
- The three men never saw Dracula going in to Lucy's room at any time.
#2. "A red mark on her throat... two punctures" (pg115, Stoker)
- Is there anyone who can prove that Dracula made the marks on her neck???
- There is no clear evidence that it was Dracula who bit her.
#3. Blood types of the three men might not have matched Lucy's and could have caused her death.
During the debate:
Ven Hesling: you HAVE SAID WORD FOR WORD " Always near Lucy" than how can Dracula even go near Lucy?
#1.The people around her would be responsible for Lucy's death since they were next to her at all times.
- They should have taken better care of her so that Lucy would have become better.
- The three men never saw Dracula going in to Lucy's room at any time.
#2. "A red mark on her throat... two punctures" (pg115, Stoker)
- Is there anyone who can prove that Dracula made the marks on her neck???
- There is no clear evidence that it was Dracula who bit her.
#3. Blood types of the three men might not have matched Lucy's and could have caused her death.
During the debate:
Ven Hesling: you HAVE SAID WORD FOR WORD " Always near Lucy" than how can Dracula even go near Lucy?